SUPREME COURT TO HEAR P2P CASE


The New York Times reports that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning the liability of the providers of peer-to-peer file-sharing software for copyright infringement. In Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer v Grokster, the court will put an end to uncertainty about liability for facilitating unauthorised film and music downloads. Although Napster was found to have infringed, Grokster was not since its technology worked in a way that didn’t allow it to control what was being exchanged over its network. The case will be heard in March 2005 and a decision is expected by some time in June of that year. Inevitable comparisons are being made with the 1984 Sony v Betamax case, which decided that the manufacturers of video recorders were not liable for copyright infringement. Because their machinery could be used in a way that did not infringe copyright.

The IPKat isn’t sure that they comparison with Sony v Betamax is a good one since the primary source of material for be “downloaded” there was from the television, which could be legitimately watched by the same viewers who videoed the programmes. However, those who benefit from P2P sourced music usually haven’t been in contact with a legitimate method of obtaining it. Merpel points out that whichever way the court is decided, the downloaders themselves will be infringing.

Both sides of the story here and here.
Another musical court case here
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR P2P CASE SUPREME COURT TO HEAR P2P CASE Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, December 13, 2004 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Nice blog on mp3 free music download. I promote a site mp3 free music download you may wish to check out. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.